Innocence

Three men were exon­er­at­ed from death row in 2024, bring­ing the total num­ber of exon­er­a­tions since 1973 to 200. Their cas­es are illus­tra­tive of pat­terns seen in many oth­er wrong­ful cap­i­tal con­vic­tions: all involved offi­cial mis­con­duct, two of the three 2024 exonerees are Black, and the three men spent an aver­age of 38.6 years awaiting exoneration.

Daniel Gwynn was exon­er­at­ed on February 27, 2024, after near­ly 30 years on Pennsylvania’s death row. His 1994 con­vic­tion relied on a coerced con­fes­sion and mis­tak­en eye­wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office rein­ves­ti­gat­ed Mr. Gwynn’s case and found that Mr. Gwynn’s con­fes­sion con­tra­dict­ed phys­i­cal evi­dence in the case, and that the pho­to line­up shown to wit­ness­es was faulty. “[T]he exon­er­a­tion of Daniel Gwynn today frees a man who is like­ly inno­cent. Sadly, it also exem­pli­fies an era of inex­act and, at times cor­rupt, polic­ing and pros­e­cu­tion that has bro­ken trust with our com­mu­ni­ties to this day,” said DA Krasner. ​“The pub­lic expects the right con­se­quences for those who com­mit vio­lent crimes and wants the inno­cent to be free. When law enforce­ment wrong­ly arrests, pros­e­cutes, and impris­ons the inno­cent, the guilty go free and are embold­ened to do more harm.”

Kerry Max Cook was tried three times for the mur­der of Linda Jo Edwards. His orig­i­nal 1978 con­vic­tion was reversed in 1991. His sec­ond tri­al, in 1992, end­ed in a mis­tri­al when the jury could not reach a unan­i­mous ver­dict. In 1994, he was again con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found in 1996 that his due process rights were vio­lat­ed and reversed that con­vic­tion. Rather than fac­ing a fourth tri­al, Mr. Cook pled ​“no con­test” in 1999, received a 20-year sen­tence, and was released on time served. Many pos­si­ble inno­cence cas­es end after sim­i­lar plea deals, with defen­dants agree­ing to the arrange­ment that secures their free­dom, but with­out any vin­di­ca­tion of their inno­cence. Mr. Cook’s case took a dif­fer­ent turn because an alter­nate sus­pect recant­ed his tes­ti­mo­ny from Mr. Cook’s tri­al. In 2016, the tri­al court held a hear­ing on the recan­ta­tion and rec­om­mend­ed relief, but said the new evi­dence did not prove Mr. Cook’s inno­cence. On June 19, 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals took the unusu­al step of declar­ing Mr. Cook ​“actu­al­ly inno­cent.” ​“The State mere­ly has to prove guilt beyond a rea­son­able doubt — which the State could nev­er achieve in this case. Cook should there­fore not have to prove his inno­cence beyond all doubt,” stat­ed the major­i­ty opin­ion, authored by Judge Bert Richardson. ​“After being incar­cer­at­ed on death row for almost twen­ty tor­tur­ous years, we hold that Cook has met the bur­den required for actu­al inno­cence and relief is hereby granted.”

Larry Roberts became the 200^th per­son exon­er­at­ed from death row when the California Attorney General’s Office announced it would not retry him, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California vacat­ed his con­vic­tion and death sen­tence. Mr. Roberts had been on death row for 41 years. He was sen­tenced to death in 1983 for the mur­ders of fel­low pris­on­er Charles Gardner and prison offi­cer Albert Patch at California Medical Facility based large­ly on the eye­wit­ness tes­ti­mo­ny of fel­low pris­on­ers. Years lat­er, one of the state’s eye­wit­ness­es admit­ted to per­jury, explain­ing that he was threat­ened by inves­ti­ga­tors at the time of the inci­dent, and infor­ma­tion regard­ing the com­pe­ten­cy of anoth­er eye­wit­ness, who had been declared insane by three court-appoint­ed psy­chi­a­trists, was dis­cov­ered to have been with­held from the defense.

Three death-sen­tenced men and one woman with strong evi­dence of inno­cence gar­nered sup­port from unusu­al sources, includ­ing law enforce­ment and elect­ed offi­cials, draw­ing sig­nif­i­cant media atten­tion and pub­lic sup­port to their cas­es.

Marcellus Williams was exe­cut­ed in Missouri on September 24, 2024, over the objec­tion of the sit­ting St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney (PA), Wesley Bell, and the victim’s fam­i­ly. Mr. Williams, also known as Khaliifah, main­tained his inno­cence in the 1998 mur­der of Felicia Gayle. PA Bell had filed a motion in January 2024 to vacate Mr. Williams’ death sen­tence after DNA test­ing exclud­ed him as the source of DNA on the murder weapon. 

In August, as an evi­den­tiary hear­ing was about to begin, the PA’s office unex­pect­ed­ly announced that the mur­der weapon con­tained the DNA of mem­bers of the tri­al pros­e­cu­tion team, an indi­ca­tion that the evi­dence had been mis­han­dled and con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed. As a con­se­quence, it could no longer be used to con­clu­sive­ly prove Mr. Williams’ inno­cence. After fur­ther nego­ti­a­tions, Mr. Williams agreed to enter a plea in exchange for a sen­tence of life with­out parole. But hours after Judge Bruce F. Hilton accept­ed the plea agree­ment, Attorney General Andrew Bailey inter­vened and asked the Missouri Supreme Court to block the deal, argu­ing that Judge Hilton did not have the author­i­ty to resen­tence Mr. Williams. In response, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered the low­er court to set aside the plea agree­ment and move for­ward with the sched­uled evi­den­tiary hear­ing. On September 12, Judge Hilton denied PA Bell’s motion and allowed Mr. Williams’ con­vic­tion to stand. On September 23, 2024, the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral argu­ments on the joint motion filed by Marcellus Williams’ legal team and PA Bell to over­turn that deci­sion, but the Missouri Supreme Court denied relief. Ignoring pleas from more than 1.5 mil­lion peo­ple on social media, Governor Mike Parson, who has nev­er grant­ed clemen­cy, denied Mr. Williams’ clemency petition.

Just two weeks after Mr. Williams was exe­cut­ed, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argu­ment in an unre­lat­ed case in which state offi­cials also sup­port­ed relief for a death sen­tenced pris­on­er, Richard Glossip. In Glossip v. Oklahoma, the Court is con­sid­er­ing whether the prosecution’s deci­sion to sup­press mate­r­i­al infor­ma­tion about their star wit­ness — who admit­ted to com­mit­ting the mur­der — and per­mit him to false­ly tes­ti­fy in exchange for a plea deal vio­lat­ed due process. Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond has already answered this ques­tion in the affir­ma­tive, con­fess­ing con­sti­tu­tion­al error and sup­port­ing a new tri­al for Mr. Glossip. AG Drummond’s sup­port of a new tri­al for Mr. Glossip is unprece­dent­ed. Mr. Glossip has also received sup­port from Oklahoma leg­is­la­tors who sup­port the death penal­ty as a pol­i­cy but believe Mr. Glossip to be innocent. 

Dramatic and unprece­dent­ed events occurred in the case of Robert Roberson in Texas, who was sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed October 17. Mr. Roberson was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death in 2003 for the death of his two-year-old daugh­ter, Nikki. Prosecutors at his tri­al argued she died from ​“Shaken Baby Syndrome” (“SBS”), a med­ical the­o­ry hold­ing that cer­tain symp­toms in young chil­dren could only have been caused by abuse. The the­o­ry has since been debunked, and med­ical experts have now deter­mined that Nikki died from severe viral and bac­te­r­i­al pneu­mo­nia that doc­tors failed to diag­nose, an acci­den­tal fall, and improp­er med­ica­tions, not from abuse. Despite three new expert reports show­ing that no crime ever occurred, the Texas courts have refused to grant Mr. Roberson relief. 

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Mr. Roberson’s emer­gency motion for a stay of exe­cu­tion, and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles reject­ed his clemen­cy peti­tion. However, a bipar­ti­san group of leg­is­la­tors who sup­port Mr. Roberson’s inno­cence claims issued a sub­poe­na for Mr. Roberson to tes­ti­fy before the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence on a date after his exe­cu­tion was to occur. The Texas Supreme Court issued a stay just 90 min­utes before Mr. Roberson’s exe­cu­tion to allow for his sub­poe­naed tes­ti­mo­ny. Mr. Roberson, who has autism spec­trum dis­or­der, was unable to par­tic­i­pate in the nine-hour hear­ing on his case on October 21, how­ev­er, because leg­is­la­tors could not reach an agree­ment with the Office of the Attorney General to allow for his in-per­son tes­ti­mo­ny. Mr. Roberson’s lawyers and leg­is­la­tors object­ed to hav­ing Mr. Roberson tes­ti­fy via video link because of the com­mu­ni­ca­tions chal­lenges relat­ed to his dis­abil­i­ty. Attorney General Ken Paxton then took the unprece­dent­ed step of pub­licly releas­ing evi­dence from Mr. Roberson’s tri­al, includ­ing the orig­i­nal autop­sy report, in a bid to ​“set the record straight about Nikki Curtis’s death.” In response to AG Paxton’s claims, a bipar­ti­san group of leg­is­la­tors released their own report and char­ac­ter­ized AG Paxton’s report as ​“mis­lead­ing and in large part sim­ply untrue.” State Reps. Joe Moody, Jeff Leach, and two oth­ers released a 16-page, point-by-point refu­ta­tion to AG Paxton’s state­ment, iden­ti­fy­ing cita­tions and tri­al exhibits to sup­port their asser­tions. ​“We know that the laws our leg­is­la­ture cre­at­ed to cor­rect those prob­lems haven’t worked as intend­ed for Robert and peo­ple like him. That’s why we’re here and why we won’t quit,” they said.

The exe­cu­tion war­rant for Mr. Roberson has now expired, and Texas offi­cials have not yet announced whether or when they will issue anoth­er war­rant. But the Texas Supreme Court issued a deci­sion on November 15, indi­cat­ing that the Texas Legislature had over­stepped its author­i­ty when it sub­poe­naed Mr. Roberson, and that a new exe­cu­tion date could be set.

In a deci­sion released pub­licly on November 14, Judge Arturo Nelson of Cameron County, Texas declared that Melissa Lucio is ​“actu­al­ly inno­cent; she did not kill her [two-year-old] daugh­ter.” Ms. Lucio has been on Texas’ death row since 2008 for the death of her daugh­ter, Mariah. Prosecutors claimed that Mariah’s injuries were caused by abuse, but Ms. Lucio has main­tained her inno­cence and says Mariah was injured in an acci­den­tal fall down the stairs. Medical evi­dence and expert tes­ti­mo­ny cor­rob­o­rates Ms. Lucio’s sto­ry. A 2022 clemen­cy cam­paign gar­nered sup­port from a bipar­ti­san group of near­ly 90 Texas leg­is­la­tors, anti-domes­tic vio­lence advo­cates (Ms. Lucio is a sur­vivor of domes­tic vio­lence), and medical experts. 

Earlier this year, Judge Nelson had signed an Agreed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law sub­mit­ted by the pros­e­cu­tion and defense stat­ing that Ms. Lucio was not giv­en access to favor­able infor­ma­tion in the prosecution’s pos­ses­sion at the time of tri­al. Such an agree­ment between the pros­e­cu­tion and defense is high­ly unusu­al. Upon receipt of that agree­ment, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) returned the case to Judge Nelson request­ing rec­om­men­da­tions on argu­ments regard­ing three out­stand­ing claims — actu­al inno­cence, false tes­ti­mo­ny pre­sent­ed by the state, and new sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence — which Judge Nelson addressed in his recent deci­sion when he found that Ms. Lucio was wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed. The case now returns to the TCCA for a final resolution.

As of the date of this report, no indi­vid­ual death-sen­tenced per­son has received clemen­cy in 2024, the first year since 2016 with­out any clemen­cy grants. The lack of clemen­cies this year is in keep­ing with DPI’s recent report, Lethal Election, and its find­ing that clemen­cies rarely occur in years when the exec­u­tive is fac­ing reelec­tion. In October, attor­neys for South Carolina pris­on­er Richard Moore sought to remove Governor Henry McMaster from the clemen­cy process, argu­ing that he could not con­sid­er Mr. Moore’s clemen­cy peti­tion neu­tral­ly because of his pri­or role as Attorney General and ear­li­er com­ments indi­cat­ing he had ​“no inten­tion” of grant­i­ng clemen­cy to Mr. Moore. A fed­er­al court reject­ed that peti­tion, say­ing that the gov­er­nor had sole pow­er to grant clemency.

Two mass clemen­cy efforts are cur­rent­ly pend­ing. Advocates in North Carolina are urg­ing out­go­ing Governor Roy Cooper to com­mute the death sen­tences of all 136 peo­ple on the state’s death row. At the kick­off event one year ago, the coali­tion of clemen­cy sup­port­ers urged Gov. Cooper to com­mute the sen­tences as ​“an act of racial justice.” 

President Joe Biden is also expect­ed to con­sid­er clemen­cy requests from many of the 40 pris­on­ers on fed­er­al death row before his term ends in January 2025. Civil rights groups, reli­gious and faith lead­ers, and many advo­cates are urg­ing the President to make good on his 2020 cam­paign promise to work to abol­ish the fed­er­al death penal­ty by com­mut­ing all fed­er­al death sen­tences to life with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole. Although Attorney General Merrick Garland imme­di­ate­ly placed a mora­to­ri­um on fed­er­al exe­cu­tions upon tak­ing office in 2021, the Department of Justice has con­tin­ued to aggres­sive­ly defend exist­ing fed­er­al death sen­tences despite long­stand­ing, sys­temic con­cerns about racial dis­crim­i­na­tion and unfair­ness. President-elect Donald Trump has expressed enthu­si­asm for the death penal­ty and over­saw 13 fed­er­al exe­cu­tions in the final six months of his first term. He has pledged to expand use of the death penal­ty when he becomes President again in 2025.